*Author

Paradox II https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=16318.msg209109#msg209109
« on: November 25, 2010, 08:20:20 am »
Very creative name, no?

Code: [Select]
6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u5 6u5 6u8 6u8 6u8 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 7an 7an 7an 7an 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q3 7q3 7q4 7q4 7q4 7q4 7q4 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5
Inspired by the awesome quadruple machine gun deck which can be found here http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,11894.msg157230#msg157230

The mark of entropy because of supernovas seems kind of ridiculous, because it is, so I added in chaos powers. But then those don't work too well with the adrenalines. Again I am unsure about the pillar count or if there is an overload of buff cards, but oh how fun it would be to be an FG like this. I think.
TUs could also be an option, but I'm not sure how badly that would make the FG's draw

EDIT: Chaos powers kind of ruin adrenaline, and there would be an excess of entropy quanta, so BEs have been added :D along with discords for more entropy spending/ a bit more control. Oh it's also 50/100 cards now. In general, more control + wiser entropy spending.

EDIT: or perhaps more adrenaline oriented:
Code: [Select]
744 744 744 744 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 74d 74d 74d 74d 7an 7an 7an 7an 7an 7an 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q3 7q3 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5
I took tower counts by look at other FGs so I'm unsure about that   :P :P and yes, this deck still breaks the rules of deckbuilding but  :( poor parrydox needs his 8 deja vus

EDIT: and just for Memory Stick:
Code: [Select]
6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u8 6u8 6u8 6ve 6ve 6ve 6ve 6ve 6ve 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 7an 7an 7an 7an 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 808 80b 80b 80b 80b 80b 80b
Reasons for stuff: No time towers since paradox seems to work fine without them, and there are entropy pendulums though it may look odd. BEs for some control  ;D, and TUs have been added to make up for the less amount of deja vus and a bit more indirect control. I kind of think having more than 6 deja vus kinda adds to the god though  :-[ but yeah

Re: Paradox II https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=16318.msg209242#msg209242
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2010, 03:10:07 pm »
still testing, but seems good... [EDIT]needs a pharaoh or two and a few more time towers..[/EDIT] still like  :fire, though

this is a modified one... like it?
Code: [Select]
6u2 6u2 6u2 6u2 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 6u3 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 74a 7an 7an 7an 7an 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q1 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q8 7qc 7qc 7qc 7qk

Memorystick

  • Guest
Re: Paradox II https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=16318.msg209356#msg209356
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2010, 06:36:37 pm »
*sigh* Limit is 6 (12 after doubling) of a card, with paradox (the original) being the sole exception to this. Why not mark of time, ent. pends, SNs, momentum, adren, dejas, and glasses, perhaps with BE, to make use of the entropy production? I'd like to see a more creative name, too :P

Re: Paradox II https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=16318.msg209381#msg209381
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2010, 07:56:00 pm »
*sigh* Limit is 6 (12 after doubling) of a card, with paradox (the original) being the sole exception to this. Why not mark of time, ent. pends, SNs, momentum, adren, dejas, and glasses, perhaps with BE, to make use of the entropy production? I'd like to see a more creative name, too :P
Well since paradox was the exception and this was based off of paradox I decided to have a bit over 12 for this deck. Yes, BE is def a good idea, I was also thinking pends but then felt like sticking to the FG tradition of only using towers  :P :P :P :P

Memorystick

  • Guest
Re: Paradox II https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=16318.msg209394#msg209394
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2010, 08:25:05 pm »
*sigh* Limit is 6 (12 after doubling) of a card, with paradox (the original) being the sole exception to this. Why not mark of time, ent. pends, SNs, momentum, adren, dejas, and glasses, perhaps with BE, to make use of the entropy production? I'd like to see a more creative name, too :P
Well since paradox was the exception and this was based off of paradox I decided to have a bit over 12 for this deck. Yes, BE is def a good idea, I was also thinking pends but then felt like sticking to the FG tradition of only using towers  :P :P :P :P
I'm pretty sure that any new FG zanz introduces will follow normal deckbuilding rules (indeed, I've heard that paradox's deck was a mistake, due to being copy-pasted into the game or something) As for tower/pends... it's not really a tradition, since all the gods were introduced before pends were. I suspect that some of the gods might be re-introduced using pends, if they're more useful to the god than  towers (for example, paradox)

Re: Paradox II https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=16318.msg209480#msg209480
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2010, 12:00:11 am »
*sigh* Limit is 6 (12 after doubling) of a card, with paradox (the original) being the sole exception to this. Why not mark of time, ent. pends, SNs, momentum, adren, dejas, and glasses, perhaps with BE, to make use of the entropy production? I'd like to see a more creative name, too :P
Well since paradox was the exception and this was based off of paradox I decided to have a bit over 12 for this deck. Yes, BE is def a good idea, I was also thinking pends but then felt like sticking to the FG tradition of only using towers  :P :P :P :P
I'm pretty sure that any new FG zanz introduces will follow normal deckbuilding rules (indeed, I've heard that paradox's deck was a mistake, due to being copy-pasted into the game or something) As for tower/pends... it's not really a tradition, since all the gods were introduced before pends were. I suspect that some of the gods might be re-introduced using pends, if they're more useful to the god than  towers (for example, paradox)
Heartbreaking additions to original post have been made  :D for more radical thinkers  :P :P. Except in the deck I built, I don't think pendulums would be necessary as the original paradox seems to run fine without extra quanta generation besides its mark, buuuuut. yeah. Maybee life pendulums. Oh gosh, too many possibilities.  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

 

blarg: